Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, MAY 23, 1904. FISCAL REFORM.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 12764, 23 May 1904, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. MONDAY, MAY 23, 1904. FISCAL REFORM.

Fob some time past there has been a lull in the great fiscal discussion. Whether it be that the Russo-Japanese war has drawn away attention from merely business affairs, or that Mr Chamberlain’s absence in Egypt took the interest out of the question, there has certainly been a cessation of the wordy warfare over this very important matter. Now, however, we are getting used to the struggle in the Far East and Mr Chamberlain has once more entered the arena, and there has been a eudden revival of interest hr tariffs and other cognate matters. Indeed, judging from the report of the debate on Mr Black's so-called amendment, the interest grew very hot for a time, and there was witnessed the not very elevating spectacle of members of the House of Commons calling one another names that were opprobrious, and which could not in the least degree assist in elucidating the complexities of the fiscal problem. Lord Hugh Cecil calling Mr Chamberlain s. coward must have recalled the days when Lord Randolph Churchill baited Sir Gladstone, It may serve to give Lord Hugh Cedi s temporary prominence, but it does not tend to edification. It is difficult jp see why the Chamberlain scheme should arouse such uncharitable feelings in the minds of a large section of the public, in some cases it may be a question of private interest, in others it may be indignation that the grand old Tory party should lend Itself to the purposes of an outsider like Mr Chamberlain. In others it may be simply the natural annoyance of a person who finds him-

self asked to answer a question he : does not understand. But the angry i I feelings are obvious enough on all I sides. If Mr Chamberlain and the < Duke of Devonshire can meet without ' quarrelling it is certain that the minor , members of either party have not I reached so philosophical a frame of mind. The historian of the day tolls j ns that never since the Home Ride , Bill have there been such heartburnings, ! such breaking up of old associations, j such family divisions as Mr Chamber- i. lain has occasioned. And if it is not | easy to understand the necessity for | so much heat it is at all events clear that the present state of feeling is not that which is most favourable for the i. discussion of a question which is one ] of business and which calls for the im- j partial collection and discussion of a | large mass of information which at | present can hardly bo said to be avail- ] able. j This leads us to compare the attitude of the two parties on the question, j The Freetraders indulge in a good deal ; of angry diatribe, but they do not seek 1 to add anything to the further knowledge of the question. Freetrade is a l ' sacred principle, which cannot be im- i pugned, and which once accepted provides the believer with a short and easy method of answering the unbeliever. The supporters of Mr Chamberlain, on the other hand, are anxious to test their scheme by an appeal to facts. They have set up a commission of inquiry at which they are willing to sacrifice time and money to get right down to the bottom of the matter. From this inquiry the Freetraders hold aloof. They will not go to the trouble of investigating the matter for themselves, and they urge their friends to

decline to give any information to their opponents. The facts, we may suppose them to think, must square with their convictions, and if by any chance they do not, well, so much the worse for them. This is an attitude which seems to us wholly unaccountable. It argues either too much or too little faith in their own creed. In any case it is not reasonable, and it is likely to do little good to the cause they have at heart. The country is more likely in the long run to be convinced oven by a defective appeal to actual experience than by a continual repetition of somewhat hackneyed formulas. Why the Opposition should insist on discussing a question which is not at present in the range of practical politics it is hard to see. They might as well insist on a definite statement of Mr Balfour’s views on the foundations of religious lielief, and make that a subject for a no-confidence motion. Mr Chamberlain, although lie goes farther than Mr Balfour, owns that the time has not yet come. He lias not yet gathered his data. It will be time enough to talk about it when the commission has collected the facts necessary to estimate the position of the various branches of trade in connection with the question of tariff reform. But the Opposition seem to think that the proper course is to argue first and to learn the facts afterwards. There is only one inference which will explain this curious attitude. The Opposition must be afraid of the facts and the effect these may have on the country. They wish to force a debate in the hope that if the Ministry is beaten on tliis question it will be shelved for a generation. It is Lord Hugh Cecil who is afraid rather than Mr Chamberlain.

Of course, it is possible that the Opposition honestly believe that the question is beyond argument, that the issue was decided in 1842, and that Free trade is for all time a part of the British Constitution. That is not our view. We believe that Freetrade was adopted in 1842 because shrewd business men were convinced that at that time it was for the advantage of the country and its commerce. And that it was so there can be no dispute. And that Freetrade, universal Freetrade, is the ideal condition may also be conceded, for we have no chance of seeing such a condition in our time. But the question is whether, under modern conditions, which have entirely changed the relative positions of Great Britain and other manufacturing countries, the. same system will be found advantageous which was advantageous sixty years ago. It is a question of business and not of academic declamation. It can only be answered by an appeal to figures. The movements, not of one trade, but of a score of trades must be carefully investigated, and a balance struck on one side or the other. The inquiry will he arduous, no doubt, and difficult, hut it is surely one on which a trained mind may be trusted to reach a decision. We prefer to listen to the experts on ilr Chamberlain’s commission than to amateurs like Lord Hugh Cecil or Sir Henry CampbellBannerman.